Princeton University Banning the Word ‘Man’

[Missouri Swede]

17 minutes ago, Valleygolfer said:

So should "Princeton" be called "Heirofroyaltyton?"

Well, "ton" sounds like you might be making some reference to its mass or weight.

Heir kind of implies male.

Royalty comes from French roi (king), and so also implies male.

Better luck next time.

[Valleygolfer]

2 minutes ago, Missouri Swede said:

Well, "ton" sounds like you might be making some reference to its mass or weight.

Heir kind of implies male.

Royalty comes from French roi (king), and so also implies male.

Better luck next time.

Stupid men...

[14ledo81]

I have an idea that the vast majority of women (sorry females) have no issue with the "man" specific terminology.

[iacas]

Guys, this is an HR department setting guidelines for their employees.

Quote

“Consistent with style guidelines issued by Princeton’s Office of Human Resources and Office of Communications, and as endorsed by the Institutional Equity Planning Group as a preferred University practice, HR has developed these gender inclusive style guidelines, to be utilized by all HR staff members in HR communications, policies, job descriptions, and job postings,” the memo states.

https://www.princeton.edu/hr/progserv/communications/inclusivelanguage.pdf

They're not forcing students to do this or whatever. It's an HR department trying to be sensitive to their employees, prospective and current.

[David in FL]

4 hours ago, newtogolf said:

You're correct, I had a brain fart and forgot Princeton was a private school.  

A private, extraordinarily liberal school.

Make no mistake, their intent is to influence their staff, to further influence their students and to subsequently continue to permeate society with this type of nonsense.  No surprise, it's what they do.

[newtogolf]

16 minutes ago, David in FL said:

A private, extraordinarily liberal school.

Make no mistake, their intent is to influence their staff, to further influence their students and to subsequently continue to permeate society with this type of nonsense.  No surprise, it's what they do.

Agreed, the Ivy league schools are the most liberal and PC schools of all.  

[grantisadrummer]

I have no idea why anyone would be opposed to a more PC society. Like, if you are given the opportunity to offend someone or not to offend them, why would you want to offend them? The second someone tells me not to use a word around them, I try my best to respect their wishes. It doesn't affect me in any way whatsoever apart from being a bit more considerate.

[Hardspoon]

I am pretty sure we were encouraged to use most of these replacements for "man" in high school English class.

[Strandly]

52 minutes ago, grantisadrummer said:

I have no idea why anyone would be opposed to a more PC society. Like, if you are given the opportunity to offend someone or not to offend them, why would you want to offend them? The second someone tells me not to use a word around them, I try my best to respect their wishes. It doesn't affect me in any way whatsoever apart from being a bit more considerate.

Speaking for myself I'm skeptical that someone is truly offended.  I think there is a small group of people out there who have a chip on their shoulder and enjoy controlling people, or they simply enjoy attention whoring.  Since the vast majority of people are pleasant, good-natured people then what better way to do that than suggest they're being offensive?

I also look at intent.  When these words were first being used was it likely the intent was to oppress or offend some group of people?  Stuff like mankind, or man-made?  I highly doubt it.  Because 1 person, 100 people, 1000 people, maybe a million people out of 6 BILLION people claim to find a word that, never in its history of usage, has had a negative connotation offensive is not a legitimate reason to start re-arranging a language imo.  I mean once you start going down this rabbit hole when does it end?  Will eventually we be banning words like 'fat' because somewhere a fat person is offended by it?

None of this is to be mistaken language that has always been derogatory.  The city I live in has a large rail yard and I think it was a major railroad building hub back in the 1800s.  Because of that and the immigrant history here there's a nearby mountain that was called Chink's Peak for like 100 years.  I believe it's been changed because it was deemed offensive and I have no problem with something like that.  Changing words like businessman, man-made, mankind etc, however, is simply asinine.

[14ledo81]

1 hour ago, grantisadrummer said:

I have no idea why anyone would be opposed to a more PC society. Like, if you are given the opportunity to offend someone or not to offend them, why would you want to offend them? The second someone tells me not to use a word around them, I try my best to respect their wishes. It doesn't affect me in any way whatsoever apart from being a bit more considerate.

Not pointing this at you personally, but at many with this view point.

It offends me when people use the Lord's name in vain.  Yet that gets done all the time.

[mcanadiens]

I think I might revert to being 1 year-old and communicating through grunting and pointing. 

[jsgolfer]

10 minutes ago, Strandly said:

Speaking for myself I'm skeptical that someone is truly offended.  I think there is a small group of people out there who have a chip on their shoulder and enjoy controlling people, or they simply enjoy attention whoring.  Since the vast majority of people are pleasant, good-natured people then what better way to do that than suggest they're being offensive?

I also look at intent.  When these words were first being used was it likely the intent was to oppress or offend some group of people?  Stuff like mankind, or man-made?  I highly doubt it.  Because 1 person, 100 people, 1000 people, maybe a million people out of 6 BILLION people claim to find a word that, never in its history of usage, has had a negative connotation offensive is not a legitimate reason to start re-arranging a language imo.  I mean once you start going down this rabbit hole when does it end?  Will eventually we be banning words like 'fat' because somewhere a fat person is offended by it?

None of this is to be mistaken language that has always been derogatory.  The city I live in has a large rail yard and I think it was a major railroad building hub back in the 1800s.  Because of that and the immigrant history here there's a nearby mountain that was called Chink's Peak for like 100 years.  I believe it's been changed because it was deemed offensive and I have no problem with something like that.  Changing words like businessman, man-made, mankind etc, however, is simply asinine.

exactly, who is really offended by these words.  @DaveP043when you do a cost estimate for a project have you changed to person hours yet?

And the slippery slope hasn't been reached but do a search of English Literature at Yale.  And you'll find some students that want Yale to stop making students in the English Literature Major from reading Major English Poets, Chaucer, Shakespere, etc, because they are white men. Now I doubt Yale will capitulate, but who knows.   

[newtogolf]

5 minutes ago, jsgolfer said:

exactly, who is really offended by these words.  @DaveP043when you do a cost estimate for a project have you changed to person hours yet?

And the slippery slope hasn't been reached but do a search of English Literature at Yale.  And you'll find some students that want Yale to stop making students in the English Literature Major from reading Major English Poets, Chaucer, Shakespere, etc, because they are white men. Now I doubt Yale will capitulate, but who knows.   

The problem is as more of these word are allowed to be censored the PC will find more words they are offended by.  I've never used the word mankind to exclude women, the definition of mankind is a synonym for human beings, so why is it offensive because its prefix is "man"?

Quote

man·kind

noun

 

1. 1.

   human beings considered collectively; the human race.

   "research for the benefit of all mankind"

   synonyms:

   the human race, man, humanity, human beings, humans, Homo sapiens, humankind,people, men and women "for the good of all mankind"

 

[grantisadrummer]

1 hour ago, Strandly said:

Changing words like businessman, man-made, mankind etc, however, is simply asinine.

I completely agree. This particular case isn't really moving towards being more PC, rather towards a misunderstanding of some pretty basic linguistics. My point wasn't that we should remove these sort of words, or enact rules that stop us from using them. I was meaning on a more personal level.

Example: I have a transgender friend who has told me that she doesn't want me to use phrases like "hey man" or "hey guys" etc, because they make her feel uncomfortable. So I respect her wishes and try not to use these phrases around her (even though I regularly use these words when talking to other female friends who don't mind it). 

I don't care whether or not it actually offends her, because it's not a difficult thing for me to do, and it doesn't really matter when there are other words I can use.

 

[Rainmaker]

This is good and all - but the real gold is in the link to the transgender pronouns guide.

"Hi - my name is Rainmaker and my pronouns are he and him.  How about you"?

HA . .ha ha . .ha ha ha ha ha . . . .no. 

 

[grantisadrummer]

18 minutes ago, Rainmaker said:

This is good and all - but the real gold is in the link to the transgender pronouns guide.

"Hi - my name is Rainmaker and my pronouns are he and him.  How about you"?

HA . .ha ha . .ha ha ha ha ha . . . .no. 

 

Kinda my point. Why does it matter to you if someone wants to be referred to as one thing or another? 

[Rainmaker]

9 minutes ago, grantisadrummer said:

Kinda my point. Why does it matter to you if someone wants to be referred to as one thing or another? 

It doesn't . . but there's no way in hell I'm saying that . ."..my pronouns are he and him . .how about you"?  Never happen.  If you want to tell me your pronouns . .that's one thing . .but I'm not asking.    Edit . . also, my pronouns are *obviously* he and him . . so I'd feel pretty awkward saying so. 

Edited August 20, 2016 by Rainmaker

[grantisadrummer]

53 minutes ago, Rainmaker said:

also, my pronouns are *obviously* he and him . . so I'd feel pretty awkward saying so.

For people in some social circles there is no such thing as someone's preferred pronouns being obvious. Count yourself lucky that you don't have to specify with everyone you talk to.